Talk:Bald and Bankrupt

Controversy/Incident Section

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached to keep incidents in the career section. Nemov (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

---

@Joseph2302 removed the incident section and folded it in the career section[1] citing WP:CRITS. @128.6.37.80 has strongly objected to this change. Getting some outside eyes to offer assistance should help us move on from this topic. Please review the discussion above to see the arguments for/against.

Does having an incident section violate WP:CRITS? Is there a good reason to have incidents separated from the career section? Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

• Keep together - There is zero reason for it to be separate and seeing as they are all negative then such a section would violate CRITS. The career section needs to be expanded, but that's a separate issue. OrgoneBox (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
• Keep together as per my arguments above. No need for a separate section. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
• (summoned by bot) WTF.- This is supposed to be a biography ? On a page with a body that starts with the sentence "The defining characteristic of Rich's channel is his interest in the post-Soviet states." a lot more has to be done before you can argue if incidents should be part of a career section or not.Wuerzele (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
• Keep together - Wikipedia should present a neutral point of view, besides I believe separating it does go against WP:CRITS. Add all the statements in the career section. - Mnair69 (talk) 07:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
• Keep together Obviously. Separating them would be ludicrous. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
• Keep together – I agree with Wuerzele, the structure of this article is very confusing. The lead sentence should have the name of the individual first, and the vlog that he runs second. Also the name of the article should be the individual's name. This is how a biography article is structured. However, if this article is focused on the vlog then it will need a video channel article structure. And, yes its better to keep the career related incidents in the career section. That is the advise given in the essay WP:CRITS. --Guest2625 (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for contributing. This is article about a YouTube channel first, but has elements of WP:BLP because it contains material about living person. That explains the some of the structure in the lead. Nemov (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Structurally, as Wuerzelle has noted, an introduction sentence such as:

"The defining characteristic of Bald and Bankrupt is heavy coverage of the post-Soviet states."

to a section titled "Career" does not work. I'm not familiar with vlogger or vlog articles. Perhaps for this RFC a few sample vlog and vlogger articles could be provided to show, as a template, how such articles should be written and structured. I found the article "Austin Evans (YouTuber)" with a quick search, and it isn't structured like this article. --Guest2625 (talk) 03:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Just as a clarification, until very recently (i.e. yesterday) it was worded differently, which might explain the apparently non-standard section headings. Primefac (talk) 09:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

This change was made to help resolve an issue Herostratus was having with an image, but he doesn't seem to like it either. Anyone is welcome to revert the change if it's not appropriate. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I have now read through the change more fully, and find that it doesn't really flow with the rest of the article. So with respect to OrgoneBox I have undone the change. Guest2625, I don't know if this affects anything significantly but you might want to know. Primefac (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Keep together - Not only for the reasons given above, but I would find it very weird to have such a generic section as "Incidents", especially since it contains very different things such as trespassing, catching Covid, or being forced to give a public apology by local authorities. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2023

while i have never watched this person's videos before, can you please capitalise the t in youtube so that it doesnt look messed up when people read it to see the misspelling in first sentence??? Thank you Fizzy bubbIech (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done here. The request is in an "x to y" format: "can you please capitalise the t in youtube ... in first sentence?" Sdrqaz (talk) 05:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fizzy bubbIech (talk • contribs) 20:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Reason for removal of the Controversies section

Can anyone explain why was the Controversies section (originally posted by BaldAndMorallyBankrupt) removed? The sources were stated and are easily searchable. Also, there's much more to him than that, this video dives a bit deeper while stating all the sources: Predator-ish (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The two sections above are a nice summary of why it's not included. Let me know if you have a more specific question. Nemov (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Seconded, the apparent conspiracy to maintain silence with regards to his past is pretty weird on the page. AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a pretty big accusation. Do you have any policy based arguments about what is missing from this article that should be included? If so, please present them in light of past discussions. Thanks. Nemov (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

New, verifiable controversy: Can we add it?

In his last video about Mongolia, baldandbankrupt, in a pinned comment, said, and I quote the full comment literally (emphasis mine, though):

I’ve noticed a lot of snobby comments saying how grim and what a shithole Mongolia is. Everyone can have their opinion but I’m gonna stick up for Mongolia here. It’s a poor country that doesn’t have many resources except some mines. However unlike richer western countries it does have a homogeneous population that is proud of being pure Mongol lineage. The people aren’t woke. Kids still call each other homo like in the good old days. The kids show wasn’t a lesbian trans show like in the West. It was based. A story of a wolf leader protecting his clan. It’s safe. Nobody will chop your arm off for your Rolex like in failed state UK. Nobody will home invade you like in the States. Kids play out in the street safely until 11pm without issue. The women are slim and beautiful. So yes it’s a bit poor and run down but overall if I had to choose to live there or London I know where I’d go to raise a family and lead a peaceful life. Winters are fucking brutal though.

This is the link to the comment (and video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dWfMMQslzU&lc=UgwEyL0neYBoZcJ9TQ94AaABAg
Unfortunately, due to YouTube being YouTube, the exact date of the comment can not be seen (unless it’s somewhere in the code). It’s in the same month as the video though, as both say “1 month ago” right now.

I dislike woke terrorism as much as the next human, but this is as usual, not any better. Especially the literal racist ideology (bold part). (I myself do not take sides. Ever.) Looks like he didn’t gain many subscribers after that anymore. (Though Socialblade is not as useful as I thought.)

So I figure, in the context of the video, it might be pretty notable. It might be the end of the channel, after all.

— 2A0A:A547:3817:1:64B4:6E76:CEE9:D0C8 (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

For something to be included in a Wikipedia article is has to have received significant coverage by reliable sources. This reads more like original research so it cannot be included here. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)